Tag Archives: SAFENANO

Reducing animal testing for nanotoxicity—PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) presentation at NanoTox 2014

Leave a reply

Writing about nanotechnology can lead you in many different directions such as the news about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and its poster presentation at the NanoTox 2014 conference being held in Antalya, Turkey from April 23 – 26, 2014. From the April 22, 2014 PETA news release on EurekAlert,

PETA International Science Consortium Ltd.’s nanotechnology expert will present a poster titled “A tiered-testing strategy for nanomaterial hazard assessment” at the 7th International Nanotoxicology Congress [NanoTox 2014] to be held April 23-26, 2014, in Antalya, Turkey.

Dr. Monita Sharma will outline a strategy consistent with the 2007 report from the US National Academy of Sciences, “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy,” which recommends use of non-animal methods involving human cells and cell lines for mechanistic pathway–based toxicity studies.

Based on the current literature, the proposed strategy includes thorough characterization of nanomaterials as manufactured, as intended for use, and as present in the final biological system; assessment using multiple in silico and in vitro model systems, including high-throughput screening (HTS) assays and 3D systems; and data sharing among researchers from government, academia, and industry through web-based tools, such as the Nanomaterial Registry and NanoHUB

Implementation of the proposed strategy will generate meaningful information on nanomaterial properties and their interaction with biological systems. It is cost-effective, reduces animal use, and can be applied for assessing risk and making intelligent regulatory decisions regarding the use and disposal of nanomaterials.

PETA’s International Science Consortium has recently launched a nanotechnology webpage which provides a good overview of the basics and, as one would expect from PETA, a discussion of relevant strategies that eliminate the use of animals in nanotoxicity assessment,

What is nano?

The concept of fabricating materials at an atomic scale was introduced in 1959 by physicist Richard Feynman in his talk entitled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom.” The term “nano” originates from the Greek word for “dwarf,” which represents the very essence of nanomaterials. In the International System of Units, the prefix “nano” means one-billionth, or 10-9; therefore, one nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, which is smaller than the thickness of a sheet of paper or a strand of hair.  …

Are there different kinds of nano?

The possibility of controling biological processes using custom-synthesized materials at the nanoscale has intrigued researchers from different scientific fields. With the ever increasing sophistication of nanomaterial synthesis, there has been an exponential increase in the number and type of nanomaterials available or that can be custom synthesized. Table 1 lists some of the nanomaterials that are currently available.

….

Oddly, given the question ‘Are there different kinds of nano?’, there’s no mention of nanobots.  Still it’s understandable that they’d focus on nanomaterials which are, as far as I know, the only ‘nano’ anything tested for toxicity. On that note, PETA’s Nanotechnology page offers this revelatory listing (scroll down about 3/4 of the way),

The following are some of the web-based tools being used by nanotoxicologists and material scientists:

Getting back to the NanoTox conference being held now in Antalya, I noticed a couple of familiar names on the list of keynote speakers (scroll down about 15% of the way), Kostas Kostarelos (last mentioned in a Feb. 28, 2014 posting about scientific publishing and impact factors’ scroll down about 1/2 way) and Mark Wiesner (last mentioned in a Nov. 13, 2013 posting about a major grant for one of his projects).

Bureaucratic incomprehensibility: REACH Nanomaterials Implementation Projects

Leave a reply

This looks to be one of those announcements made by an organization that is simply going through the motions or perhaps they’ve forgotten that no one understands bureaucratese unless they’re intimately involved.

This first bit isn’t so bad, from the Oct.19, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Final reports have been published from two REACH Implementation Projects on Nanomaterials (RIP-oN 2&3). Commissioned by the JRC’s Institute for Health & Consumer Protection, the projects intended to develop specific advice on the implementation of REACH for nanomaterials. The outputs from the projects have been developed over a period of 12-16 months in consultation with a range of stakeholders. The reports have scoped the current state-of-the-science regarding assessment of nanomaterials in the context of REACH, and provide recommendations to the European Commission on how the REACH Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment could be further developed to better address nanomaterials.

So we have two final reports. Here’s the description of the reports,

The RIP-oN 2 project has addressed the REACH information requirements on intrinsic properties of nanomaterials, and the information needed for safety evaluation of nanomaterials. The RIP-oN 3 project has addressed exposure assessments and hazard and risk characterisation for nanomaterials within the REACH context.

Not the most informative description I’ve ever read. And as it turns out, there’s a third report,

Under a separate process, a third report from the RIPoN activity relating to Substance Identity (Rip-oN 1) has also been published. This report is also available online, however, according to the Commission it was not possible to reach consensus amongst the experts on the recommendations, therefore further work of the Commission, in collaboration with CARACAL, is required before recommendations can be forwarded to ECHA

Maybe a government bureaucrat understands some of this?

Job posting at Safenano

Leave a reply

Here it is,

We are actively seeking a Research Scientist to join Safenano. The principal, technical and administrative functions will include:

* Provision of specialist competence in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA);

* Supporting the development of proposals in the pursuit of consultancy and research opportunities;

* Contributing to and leading (where appropriate) projects involving LCA;

* Developing and implementing LCA methods for nanotechnology;

* Writing client reports, position papers and articles for peer-reviewed publication.

The post holder should have a first degree (minimum Upper Second Class division) in a physical or life science and post-graduate qualification in a physical or life science, with a focus on life cycle assessment (LCA).

The salary range for the post is £17,847 – £25,000 and will be dependent on qualifications and experience.

If you have relevant experience and want to join the Safenano team at the IOM [Institute of Occupational Medicine], please request further information about the post from Ms Gemma Burns (gemma.burns@iom-world.org) or contact Dr Steve Hankin (Tel. +44 131 449 8040). The closing date for applications is 31 August 2010.

The original job posting and Safenano site are here. As you may have guessed, Safenano is located in the UK.

Self-cleaning windows almost here?; SAFENANO consortium and two new contracts; high school students in Albany, NY compete with nano projects; the state of science journalism in the UK

2 Replies

According to a news item on Nanowerk, the Nanophase Technologies Corporation introduced a new nanotechnology-enabled window cleaning product at the International Window Cleaning Association Convention in Reno (Jan. 27 – 30, 2010). From the news item,

NanoUltra™ Super Hydrophilic Window Technology keeps windows cleaner longer than traditional window washing by providing an invisible protection to the surface of glass. The NanoUltra™ products impart a protection to the glass surface that is hydrophilic, allowing water to create a sheeting action that washes away dirt and grime. These revolutionary products also accelerate drying time, resulting in virtually spot and streak free windows.
This high-performance product works using a two-step application method. First, NanoUltra™ Super Hydrophilic Window Pretreatment, a nano cerium oxide based product, is applied to provide both a chemical and mechanical polishing mechanism that restores glass to ‘like new’ condition. Then the NanoUltra™ Super Hydrophilic Treatment product is applied to maintain the super hydrophilic surface property and give windows the ultimate shine.
The results can provide significant benefits to building owners and managers, professional window cleaners and window restoration specialists. In addition to potentially reducing liability and cleaning costs for the building owners, the NanoUltra™ technology offers up-sell and new business development opportunities for those servicing these patrons.

There’s more about the windows on Nanowerk here.

I’m happy to hear that I’m a step closer to self-cleaning windows although I wasn’t thinking of getting two new cleaning products. I want windows that are perpetually self-cleaning and not reliant on coatings that I have to reapply and which will likely leave streaks. This my problem with cleaning windows, i.e., streaks. Plus, I’m concerned about the birds. Won’t birds hurt themselves flying into shiny (“… ultimate shine …” ), clear windows?

SAFENANO, mentioned earlier this week (Jan. 27, 2010) has just announced two contracts which will provide information for the regulation of nanomaterials. From the news item on Nanowerk,

A consortium led by SAFENANO from the Institute of Occupational Medicine has been awarded two contracts by the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection of the European Commission’s Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC) concerning the development of specific advice on the assessment of nanomaterials under REACH. The first project, REACH-NanoInfo (also known as RIP-oN2), addresses the REACH information requirements on intrinsic properties of nanomaterials. The second project, REACH-NanoHazEx (RIP-oN3), addresses undertaking exposure assessments and conducting hazard and risk characterisation for nanomaterials within the REACH context.

If you want more information about the projects, go here.

I’ve been lazily following the nanotechnology scene in NY state since 2008 when IBM awarded $1.5B to the state for nanotechnology. From the announcement on Nanowerk,

The investment will go toward three separate and complementary components of a comprehensive project, supporting the nanotechnology chip computer activities of IBM: the expansion of IBM’s operations at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at the University at Albany (Albany NanoTech), the creation of a new, advanced semiconductor packaging research and development center at a to be determined in Upstate New York, and the upgrading of IBM’s East Fishkill facility in Dutchess County.

Since then, I’ve noticed, with much interest, the University of Albany’s nanotechnology outreach efforts (latest posting about it here).  It seems they have also reached into high schools. According to the news item on Nanowerk,

A trio of high school seniors conducting hands-on nanotechnology research through internships at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (“CNSE”) of the University at Albany have been selected as semifinalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search (“Intel STS”), the nation’s most prestigious pre-college science competition. The three are among just 300 students chosen nationwide to compete for $1.25 million in awards, with 40 finalists scheduled to be announced on January 27.

I did track down the Jan.27.10 announcement of the 40 finalists but have not found a list of names. From the announcement,

New York again has the highest number [emphasis mine] of young innovators in this competition (11 this year). Following New York is California with eight finalists; Texas with three; Illinois, New Jersey and Oregon with two each; and Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wisconsin with one finalist each.

Unfortunately I don’t have a neat segue for my next bit which is about science journalism in the UK. According to the news item on physorg.com,

The study ‘Mapping the Field: Specialist science news journalism in the UK national media’ was led by Dr Andy Williams of the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies. It was based on a survey of UK science, health, and environment news journalists, and 52 in-depth interviews with specialist reporters and senior editors in the national news media.

According to the research there has been an increase in the number of specialist science journalists in the UK national news media and there is a growing appetite for science news within newsrooms.

Also noted are the problems that all journalists are currently facing as newspapers and magazines struggle for survival.

If you want to read more about the study, you can also go here, where more information such as this is featured,

Whilst the extent of the influence of public relations varies widely between different news outlets, there is a general sense that PR has become an increasingly important and unavoidable presence over the last decade. A significant minority, 23%, believe science specialists rely on PR too much, and 25% of respondents said they now use more PR than previously. Many interviewees complain that a lot of their time is spent trying to convince news desks not to run poor-quality “bad science” stories they have seen on the news wires and/or in eye-catching press releases.

The struggle between journalists and PR practitioners is longstanding and worth discussing in a posting next week. Meanwhile, happy weekend.

New US nanotechnology legislation for health and safety proposed; SAFENANO reviews 2009

Leave a reply

After finding this announcement on Azonano (or you can find it on Senator Pryor’s site here),

U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) today introduced legislation to address potential health and safety risks about products that contain nanotechnology materials.

…

The Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 would establish a program within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the health and safety implications of nanotechnology in everyday products and develop best practices for companies who employ nanotechnology. The legislation authorizes $25 million each year from 2011 through 2015.

I went looking for a comment or news release about it on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website and was surprised to find nothing. In fact, I couldn’t find any commentary anwyhere in my very brief search this morning.

Meanwhile, SAFENANO (an initiative of the UK’s Institute of Occupational Medicine) has produced a review of  nanotechnology environment, health, and safety developments for 2009. They cover both developments in Europe and elsewhere. From the review,

In January, the International Standards Organisation ISO published a technical report ISO/TR 12885:2008 ” Health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies “. The report provides a general background the nanoparticle risk issues and describes in some detail current practices for risk assessment, exposure measurement and control which are appropriate for use with engineered nanoparticles. This report takes an encyclopaedic view but stops short of recommending which practices are appropriate for which materials under which circumstances, leading to disappointment for some users. This report is commercially available from ISO.
This was closely followed by a report from Canada published by Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), in collaboration with CSST and  NanoQuébec The document ” Best Practices Guide to Synthetic Nanoparticle Risk Management, Report R599 “, covered much of the same ground as the ISO document but in less detail. This document also introduced the idea of using a “control banding” approach based on that described by Paik and recommends that this approach is used where there is insufficient information for a quantitative risk assessment.

It is a very interesting and useful review which you can read here.